Allowed

Ishwari Janjani v. J v v N L Jaipur

Rajasthan HC8 Jan 2014CW/6824/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a widow seeking recovery of an amount deducted from her husband's gratuity. The court held the respondents' action of re-fixing pay without a supporting rule to negate a personal increment was illegal and violative of natural justice, directing payment of the amount.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay recovered amount with 9% interest and extend family pension benefits at revised pay.

Ishwari Janjani Vs J v v N L Jaipur — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6824/2004 (Ishwari Jhanjhani Vs. J.V.V.N.L., Jaipur)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6824/2004

¶5

(Ishwari Jhanjhani Vs. J.V.V.N.L., Jaipur)

¶6

Date of Order : 08^sh January, 2014

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶8

Mr.Rajendra Vaish, for the petitioner/s. Mr.Raunak Singhvi, for the respondent/s.

¶9

BY THE COURT:

¶10

A letter petition was filed by the widow, who was getting family pension but an amount of Rs.7,119/- was deducted from gratuity. It was after showing it to be an excessive payment towards family pension on account of wrong fixation.

¶11

Learned counsel, appointed to assist the petitioner, submits that an additional affidavit was filed showing pay scale of the petitioner's husband before his death. Petitioner's husband was in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2050 and stagnated on reaching to basic of Rs.2050 in the year 1992. As per the rules and policy of the respondent/s, he was allowed one increment on completion of two years after stagnation. The fixation of salary was made accordingly. The family pension was determined based on the aforesaid, however, respondent/s revised the benefit by ignoring additional increment given to petitioner's husband. The difference of amount in meager, which is around Rs.159/- but effect the widow. The respondents were not justified to revise the family pension, moreso when, it is based on erroneous calculation. Even no notice or opportunity of hearing was given before deduction of amount from gratuity, thus the principles of natural justice have also been violated by the respondents.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondent/s, on the other hand, submits that petitioner's husband refused to accept promotion somewhere in the year 1990, thus they

¶13

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6824/2004

¶14

(Ishwari Jhanjhani Vs. J.V.V.N.L., Jaipur)

¶15

¶16

took a decision not to make him entitled for additional increment on stagnated pay. In view of aforesaid, re-fixation was made effecting the benefit of family pension. The amount was determined and deducted from gratuity.

¶17

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully.

¶18

Petitioner's husband stagnated in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2050 and was allowed additional increment after two years' in the year 1994. The additional increment treating it to be personal pay was admissible as per Rules and Policy of the respondents. The aforesaid benefit was withdrawn by the respondents on the ground of denial to accept promotion by the petitioner's husband, though rule does not exist to that effect. As per policy, one was not entitled to the selection scale, if refuses to accept promotion. The aforesaid is not applicable for grant of personal pay in the shape of one increment, thus without there being a rule or policy of the respondents, re-fixation of pay of petitioner's husband was illegal, rather contrary to rules. It was even in violation of principles of natural justice. The respondents have no authority to recover the amount from gratuity.

¶19

In view of discussion made above, action of the respondents is declared to be illegal. They are directed to pay the amount, so recovered from gratuity along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent. They are further directed to extend benefit of family pension on last drawn wages at the time of death of petitioner's husband with revision of pay from time to time in accordance to rules.

¶20

With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.

¶21

(M.N. BHANDARI), J.

¶22

S/No.4 Preety, Jr.P.A.

¶23

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6824/2004 (Ishwari Jhanjhani Vs. J.V.V.N.L., Jaipur)

¶24

¶25

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the

¶26

judgment/order being emailed.

¶27

Preety Asopa Jr.P.A.

Ishwari Janjani v. J v v N L Jaipur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwari Janjani v. J v v N L Jaipur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra Singh Krishnia and Anr. Vs R C S a T and Ors.

Raghuveer Singh Sahiwala Vs R S R T C and Anr.

Gahdsi Ram Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sardar Singh Vs Chairman Hindustan Coppser Lim

Bal Krishan Meena Vs Institute of Bank

Shambhu Dayal Yogi Vs State Irrigation Departors